Benchmark: diffenceWith - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var oldArr = [
  {
    "id": 52
  },
  {
    "id": 76
  },
  {
    "id": 13
  },
  {
    "id": 96
  },
  {
    "id": 27
  },
  {
    "id": 8
  },
  {
    "id": 23
  },
  {
    "id": 63
  },
  {
    "id": 25
  }
]

var newArr = [
{
    "id": 52
  },
  {
    "id": 76
  },
  {
    "id": 13
  },
  {
    "id": 96
  },
  {
    "id": 27
  },
  {
    "id": 8
  },
  {
    "id": 23
  },
  {
    "id": 63
  },
  {
    "id": 25
  },
  {
    "id": 1
  },
]

Tests:

Native 1
newArr.reduce((ids, {id}) => { return ids.concat( !oldArr.some(oldItem => oldItem.id === id) ? id : [] ); }, [])
Native 2
newArr.filter(({ id }) => !oldArr.some(o => o.id === id))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native 1
Native 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided benchmark definition compares the performance of two approaches to find unique elements in an array: using the `reduce()` method and using the `filter()` method.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Native 1**: Using the `reduce()` method with a custom callback function to concatenate unique IDs.
2. **Native 2**: Using the `filter()` method to remove duplicate IDs from the original array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native 1 (Reduce)

Pros:

* Can be more concise and expressive, as it uses a single function to achieve multiple steps.
* Can handle edge cases, such as an empty input array or no duplicates.

Cons:

* May have higher overhead due to the use of recursion and callback functions.
* Requires careful implementation of the callback function to ensure correctness.

### Native 2 (Filter)

Pros:

* Typically faster and more efficient, as it uses a simple iteration over the original array.
* Easy to implement and understand, as it uses a straightforward filtering approach.

Cons:

* May require additional memory allocation for the filtered array.
* Can be less concise and more verbose than using `reduce()`.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method is used. This method takes three arguments: a callback function, an initial value (which defaults to `undefined`), and the array to reduce. The callback function is called for each element in the array, allowing you to transform the elements or accumulate a result.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's standard: ES6 arrow functions, template literals, and Array.prototype methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If using `filter()` doesn't provide the expected performance, other alternatives can be explored:

1. **Set data structure**: Using a Set to store unique IDs and then iterating over it to find duplicates.
2. **Manual iteration**: Iterating manually over both arrays, keeping track of seen values, and returning only those that haven't been seen.

However, these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or complexity compared to the `reduce()` or `filter()` approaches.

In summary, this benchmark compares two efficient ways to find unique elements in an array: using the `reduce()` method with a custom callback function and the `filter()` method. The choice of approach depends on performance requirements, code readability, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

diffenceWith (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native 1 vs Native 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native 1

Native 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):